As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Monday, January 09, 2012

Your Conspiracy Theory Is Nutty...

Ours is sane. The Journal of 9-11 Studies publishes two more papers, which again demonstrate that the real name of the publication should be The Journal of Debunking Pentagon Missiles, Flyovers and Bombs. As always, the Truthers do a spectacular job of demolishing those parts of the conspiracy theory with which they disagree, while remaining blind to the weaknesses of their pet hypotheses.

Fact: The new WTC1 & 7 featured a stronger blend of steel, a stronger/reinforced central core, and a special concrete mix designed for strength.

Conclusion: While the NIST didn't waste their time exploring the obvious structural shortcomings of the original designs the Port Authority and other NYC experts made notes on the multiple problems which have been corrected in the city's building codes.

As far as those alleged questions go nobody else has answered them either even after ten years.

Actually, that's how science works, but you wouldn't know since you're a failed janitor who doesn't understand the first thing about science.

FACT: 273 of the widows' 300 questions went unanswered.

False.

FACT: NIST never addressed the 7 essential mysteries of the towers' collapses.

As I've said many times before, you're a delusional liar who doesn't understand the first thing about physics, so it doesn't surprise me that you think there are "mysteries" about the collapse. This doesn't mean that normal people find the collapse mysterious.

MGF, since you have a habit of making up your facts, and you since you cite no references, there is no reason to believe your claims.

But even if they're true, so what? One would hope that technologies in steel construction would improve in the 45 years since the twin towers were designed.

Upon what basis do you conclude that analysis of the alleged shortcomings of the WTC design would have been a waste of time? One of NIST's stated goals was to explain "why and how" the towers came down. If they ignored a significant factor because of its political inconvenience, they showed their basic dishonesty such that the rest of their report can not possibly be trusted--and, it could be argued, helped to perpetrate insurance fraud.

Your inability to acknowledge that the Family Steering Committee in fact had questions only shows your ignorance and extremely biased nature.

MGF, since you have a habit of making up your facts, and you since you cite no references, there is no reason to believe your claims.

Why do you think we do nothing but point and laugh at you, Brian? Your "facts" are all delusional lies, and you're a failed janitor who washes his hair with soap.

One of NIST's stated goals was to explain "why and how" the towers came down.

Which they did, regardless of how much a failed janitor squeals about it.

If they ignored a significant factor because of its political inconvenience, they showed their basic dishonesty such that the rest of their report can not possibly be trusted--and, it could be argued, helped to perpetrate insurance fraud.

Which they didn't, no matter how much a failed janitor squeals about it.

Your inability to acknowledge that the Family Steering Committee in fact had questions only shows your ignorance and extremely biased nature.

The widows have no questions, Brian. You can squeal about that all you want, but it won't change the facts.

Ian, MGF claims that the towers were defectively constructed. NIST did not say that. So either MGF is wrong, or NIST is lying. Which is it?

NIST did not explain how the towers came down. In fact NIST specifically acknowledged "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

If they can't explain how it collapsed, then their explanation of why it collapsed can not be trusted.

There have no need for an alternative hypothesis in order to establish the inadequacy of the official reports. It's like a courtroom situation: if the prosecution fails to prove that my client committed the crime, I have no obligation to show who did. NIST failed to prove its case. They didn't even try to prove their case.

In your constant reframing of the issue as "unemployed janitor v. the truth" you twist reality all out of shape.

Ian, you lie. MGF said the towers had obvious structural shortcomings. NIST did not. So either MGF is wrong, or NIST is lying in covering up those shortcomings, and thus participating in $6 billion insurance fraud.

Ian, you lie. NIST's own objectives for the investigation included the explanation of "how and why" the towers came down. They did not explain how, and they admitted they didn't.

Ian, you lie. I have established the inadequacy of the reports. They did not explain how the towers came down, and they failed to address the 7 major mysteries of the collapses.

RGT, is it proper to artificially apply the restrictions of a scientific investigation to a public issue? The standards of evidence and procedure are different for journalistic, civil law, criminal law, and science.

Ian, you lie. MGF said the towers had obvious structural shortcomings. NIST did not. So either MGF is wrong, or NIST is lying in covering up those shortcomings, and thus participating in $6 billion insurance fraud.

False. You just can't read, Brian. It's what I expect from someone who couldn't hack it as a janitor.

Ian, you lie. NIST's own objectives for the investigation included the explanation of "how and why" the towers came down. They did not explain how, and they admitted they didn't.

False.

Ian, you lie. I have established the inadequacy of the reports. They did not explain how the towers came down, and they failed to address the 7 major mysteries of the collapses.

False. You've just babbled on and on about your various delusions. Nobody cares if you've established the "inadequacy" of the reports in your mind, because you're an insane liar and pervert.

"MGF claims that the towers were defectively constructed. NIST did not say that. So either MGF is wrong, or NIST is lying. "

Didn't claim that at all.

Fact: NYC changed many construction codes to allow the WTC to be constructed as designed. While they didn't compromise safety they pushed it as far as they could.

The Twin Towers and WTC7 were not defectively constructed. However the code changes which allowed their unique construction-style (the thing that made them beautiful) also lead to their catastrophic failure.

There's no negligence involved because nobody anticipated an attack by passenger jets at the time of the initial design, nor by the time the towers opened.

The new WTC1 is designed based on all of the data collected about the failure of the Twin Towers. The changes speak for themselves, and those who discuss the changes seem to feel the original designs had problems. The new WTC7 is also a much more solid design.

"Your inability to acknowledge that the Family Steering Committee in fact had questions only shows your ignorance and extremely biased nature."

Oh yeah, I am biased. This also speaks to my ability to focus on relevant issues, and not waste time on a side show.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Most of the questions have been answered. The politically skewered/anti-American questions were never designed to be answered, only to sling mud.

ToothlessAndAlwaysWacko, science has not always been the backbone of every investigation. Newspaper reports and court cases happen every day that have nothing to do with science. You've been watching too much CSI.

Your belief that the perps need be on the scene of the crimes, and that the perps' DNA would be covered from 500,000 tons of rubble is absurd.

I have much studied the media--attended many conferences and symposia, read a few books. The media don't do long-term investigations like Watergate any more. Like Ian says, "Nobody cares". They don't pay. Also, news has to have something to hang it on. You can't just write a story that says "New analysis indicates that the NIST report of 2005 was all hooey." You need a Congressional committee or some kind of news to hang it on.

ButtGale, you kick your own ass.

Ian, you lie. MGF said "NIST didn't waste their time exploring the obvious structural shortcomings" of the towers.

Ian, you lie. NIST's own objectives for the investigation included the explanation of "how and why" the towers came down. They did not explain how, and they admitted they didn't.

Ian, you lie. I have established the inadequacy of the reports. They did not explain how the towers came down, and they failed to address the 7 major mysteries of the collapses.

Saying the towers came down because of gravity is like saying JFK died of death.

ToothlessAndAlwaysWacko, it's obvious what your point is: "Truthers are the dumbest people on earth, and we are smart because we're not them." Too bad you have to lie to yourselves and each other to try to maintain your illusions.

Billman, you're just playing dumb. You know who the widows are. I don't remember any questions about shadow government, and I think you're being dishonest to suggest that there were any. They are citizens of the USA, victims of 9/11, and entitled to demand accountability and to engage in civic activism for reform.

Your "If you had shit on your shoes you would eat it" hypothetical is nothing but an ad hominem fantasy. If 298 of the widows' questions had been answered, they would not be complaining about the lack of answers.

Ian, you lie. I have established the inadequacy of the reports. They did not explain how the towers came down, and they failed to address the 7 major mysteries of the collapses.

False. You've established that you're a delusional liar, as there are no "mysteries" of the collapse to normal people who don't sniff glue or wash their hair with soap.

Saying the towers came down because of gravity is like saying JFK died of death.

JFK died from a gunshot wound to the head. The fact that you don't know this explains why you're so confused about 9/11.

Billman, you're just playing dumb. You know who the widows are. I don't remember any questions about shadow government, and I think you're being dishonest to suggest that there were any. They are citizens of the USA, victims of 9/11, and entitled to demand accountability and to engage in civic activism for reform.

Nobody cares about your "widows", Brian.

If 298 of the widows' questions had been answered, they would not be complaining about the lack of answers.

You can squeal all you want, Brian, but it doesn't change the fact that the widows have no questions.

Let's all remember the important facts here: Brian Good (aka petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, snug.bug, contrivance, watson, truebeleaguer, truetruther, etc. etc.) is an unemployed janitor living with his parents on disability. He was expelled from the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet, ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from both Willie Rodriguez and Craig Ranke, and washes his hair with soap.

ButtGale, you're only exhibiting your logical deficits. That the CIA and the FBI routinely ignored the "law" and shared little or nothing is Bamford's point. And mine.

You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Ian, I wouldn't ask the media to investigate magic thermite elves. I would ask them to report the fact that by punting on the collapse, NIST was able to ignore the 7 essential mysteries of the event--the ones people may still be talking about 1000 years from now.

"There were no intelligence barriers. James Bamford says the law not only allowed the CIA to share information with the FBI, it required it."

Really? Why did the FBI complain because when they received NSA transcripts of incoming and outgoing international calls they only got the foriegn side of the call while the domestic side was blacked out? 'Cuz it was the law.

Why didn't Able Danger, an US Army intel Op make it's suspicions known to the FBI about possible Al Qaeda operatives in the US? Because they are forbidden by law from "spying" on Americans or inside CONUS.

While the CIA and FBI were supposed to be working together through ALEC Station the CIA was being investigated for moles by the FBI. This created a toxic affect on operations by the CIA as no department head was willing to do anything which could remotely be construed as illegal. This got worse once the original heads of Alec Station and the FBI's CT unit were re-assigned because both ruffled feathers at the White House (Clinton).

I'm starting to think you were in jail in the late 1990s because your knowledge of current events is so foggy.

"...There were no intelligence barriers. James Bamford says the law not only allowed the CIA to share information with the FBI, it required it." -- The goat fucker, time stamp 10 January, 2012 19:51

As anyone can see, you never said a goddamned word about the FBI routinely ignoring the law. That was my point, which I posted at time stamp 10 January, 2012 23:09. And you didn't change your tune until I pointed out the truth.

And you did change your tune--and I quote:

"...That the CIA and the FBI routinely ignored the "law" and shared little or nothing is Bamford's point. And mine." -- The goat fucker, time stamp 10 January, 2012 22:26.

So which is it, goat fucker?

You contradict yourself with abandon and change your story when confronted with the truth. And we all know that an ever-shifting rationale is the defining characteristic of a liar.

Ian, I wouldn't ask the media to investigate magic thermite elves. I would ask them to report the fact that by punting on the collapse, NIST was able to ignore the 7 essential mysteries of the event--the ones people may still be talking about 1000 years from now.

Right, you want them to report on your delusions, like magic thermite elves.

UtterFail, there was no contradiction. I did not change my tune. You are simply blowing red-herring farts.

Ian, please tell me where NIST explained the 7 essential mysteries of the event--the ones people may still be talking about 1000 years from now.

If you think structural shortcomings are not defects, I've got a rusted bridge I'd like to sell you.

The only one babbling about modified attack baboons is you. Try a vacation in the reality-based community. NIST never explained how a local failure one one side of the building could translate to a total, symmetrical, collapse at 2/3 freefall acceleration. And they acknowledges: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

You provide no evidence that I failed as a janitor. Did Mr. Kyle tell you that?

I didn't run away from anything. I disqualified SLC as moderators when they showed they had no concept of ethics. Willie refused to put any effort into finding another venue. He's the one that ran away.

I don't remember any questions about shadow government, and I think you're being dishonest to suggest that there were any.

We've had this conversation before. And I think you're being dishonest to claim ignorance of having this exchange in the past.

Any, to remind you: this link that YOU yourself used to provide as a list of Widows questions... under FBI/CIA/NSA, question #7. At exactly what time was the shadow government put in place?

They are citizens of the USA, victims of 9/11, and entitled to demand accountability and to engage in civic activism for reform.

Agreed. I'm fine with all of that. But that doesn't answer why they should be the end all be all of justice that you make them out to be.

Plus, on that same site they even say The report did not answer all of our questions, but its in-depth analysis of intelligence, foreign policy, security and other failures and subsequent recommendations for improvement were reforms we could endorse.

Ian, please tell me where NIST explained the 7 essential mysteries of the event--the ones people may still be talking about 1000 years from now.

Brian, your "7 essential mysteries" are just your delusions, so they don't need to be explained, and nobody will be talking about them after you croak. Nobody cares what a failed janitor and liar who washes his hair with soap thinks is "mysterious".

If you think structural shortcomings are not defects, I've got a rusted bridge I'd like to sell you.

Thanks for proving my point. You don't know the meaning of either "defect" or "structural shortcoming". Also, you don't own a bridge. You're unemployed and live with your parents.

The only one babbling about modified attack baboons is you. Try a vacation in the reality-based community. NIST never explained how a local failure one one side of the building could translate to a total, symmetrical, collapse at 2/3 freefall acceleration. And they acknowledges: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

See what I mean? You're a delusional failed janitor who squeals when he's pwn3d by smart people.

You provide no evidence that I failed as a janitor. Did Mr. Kyle tell you that?

You told us you're a failed janitor. You also told us you are "petgoat".

I didn't run away from anything. I disqualified SLC as moderators when they showed they had no concept of ethics. Willie refused to put any effort into finding another venue. He's the one that ran away.

Woah! Talk about your quote-mining! I have NEVER used that link to demonstrate the widows' questions, and I don't know where you got the idea that I did.

"Shadow government" does not appear in the widows' list of 300 questions at Justicefor911.org, so this question is not in the universe of the 91% of the widows' questions that were not answered. So in an attempt to counter the fact that 91% of their questions were not answered, you cite as an example of their "retarded"? questions, a question that wasn't even on their list. Nice going!

Your belief that the widows are happy to have 66% of their questions ignored and only 9% answered is just loony denial. Grow a brain.

"Shadow government" does not appear in the widows' list of 300 questions at Justicefor911.org, so this question is not in the universe of the 91% of the widows' questions that were not answered. So in an attempt to counter the fact that 91% of their questions were not answered, you cite as an example of their "retarded"? questions, a question that wasn't even on their list. Nice going!

Nobody cares about your "widows", no matter how much dumbspam you post about them.

Your belief that the widows are happy to have 66% of their questions ignored and only 9% answered is just loony denial. Grow a brain.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Every night I go to bed with a smile on my face from knowing that the "widows" still don't have their questions answered. All Brian can do about it is squeal and cry. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Billman, #5 is not necessary? It is not necessary for the widows of 9/11 to ask the President why he sat on his ass instead of supervising the defense of his country when it was under attack? Pardon me, your bias is showing.

You are making empty claims of bias that you do not demonstrate.

How does it show bias to ask who benefited from 9/11? That sounds about as objective as you can get.

#27 is a foundation statement for question #28 are elements of the same question. If you'd actually read this stuff instead of quoting from lying propaganda websites you wouldn't embarrass yourself so much.

#35 is a question. "Please comment" is a question.

#36 is a question. "Please explain why" is a question.

Why are you lawyering for the defense of a dishonest administration and its whitewash investigation?

science has not always been the backbone of every investigation. Newspaper reports and court cases happen every day that have nothing to do with science. You've been watching too much CSI.

If you raped Carol, and you left a semen behind. Your ass will be in jail in no time flat because you left a DNA fingerprint at the crime.

it's obvious what your point is: "Truthers are the dumbest people on earth, and we are smart because we're not them." Too bad you have to lie to yourselves and each other to try to maintain your illusions.

What type of illusions Brian? Do we talk about death rays from space, or that buildings could fall at rediculas speeds through the path of great resistence (Really? The path of great RESISTENCE!), or what some magic thermite elves stuffed the Towers with their fairy dust, or some other retarded idea that doesn't involve science and math? No we don't, but you do that on a daily basis and that's why you're on welfare and you have Social Security Income (SSI). I'm surprised they haven't locked you up for sexually stalking Carol and making death threats at Kevin B. and Willie R.

""Shadow government" does not appear in the widows' list of 300 questions at Justicefor911.org, so this question is not in the universe of the 91% of the widows' questions that were not answered."

That's because none of the questions are on Justicefor911.org. That site links to the site Billman posted where the questions are indeed listed, and right there is the question about the "shadow government".

So once again we catch BG either flat out lying about his source, or using a source hs hasn't even bothered to actually read.

So Pat, are you trying to say that your conspiracy theory that 19 little guys with boxcutters managed to overwhelm the air defenses of the greatest military power the world has ever seen for 110 minutes is sane?

That they could fly an unarmed airliner off course for 400 miles and ram it into the military HQ even after hitting the twin towers half an hour before?

That when two known al Qaeda agents who had

1) lived with an FBI informant in San Diego and

2) made phone calls back to a known al Qaeda safe house in Yemen that was bugged by NSA satellite intercepts, CIA intercepts, electronic surveillance and audio bugs,

bought ten airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their real names, nobody in the intelligence community noticed?

Not even when the Mossad warned of 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big, and named their names, along with those of 2 alleged 9/11 pilots?

So Pat, are you trying to say that your conspiracy theory that 19 little guys with boxcutters managed to overwhelm the air defenses of the greatest military power the world has ever seen for 110 minutes is sane?

It always comes back to incredulity. Brian, an unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear and washes his hair with soap, doesn't think what happened on 9/11 is what SHOULD have happened.

And then, because he has no evidence to the contrary, we get all the hilarious stuff about magic thermite elves and remote-controlled planes and smoldering carpets.

Brian, I've told you many times that nobody cares what you think. That's why, after 3 years of spamming this blog, you've gotten absolutely nowhere in your quest for a new investigation, or to get the "widows" questions answered, or to get "meatball on a fork" published in a journal.

And I guarantee that if this blog is still here in 3 years, you'll still be spamming it, and we'll still be exactly where we are today.

ButtGale, if you think I plagiarized from a person I never heard of, kindly back up your claim with appropriate quotes and timestamps.

Ian, I think that when we got warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA--plus warnings from the Mossad that named names, including 2 alleged 9/11 pilots and 2 known al Qaeda operatives who bought 10 airline tickets under their own names dated 9/11/01--that we shouldn't have been caught flat-footed on 9/11.

I think that when NORAD drilled on hijacked-airliner-into-WTC scenarios before 9/11, that they shouldn't have been caught flat-footed.

I think that when 600 mph airliners can rule the skies for 100 minutes and 1800 mph F-15s can't catch them, something's wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

I think that when NIST issues reports that fail to address the 7 essential mysteries (and ignore one of the stated objectives of the report in doing so) and ignore the laws of physics, something's wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

I think when the 9/11 Commission fails to answer 91% of the widows' questions, and the best answer the propaganda machine can come up with is "they're idiots and nobody cares what they want" something's wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

I think that when people who haunt a debunkers' website soend all their time lying instead of doing serious debunking, something's wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

Ian, I think that when we got warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA--plus warnings from the Mossad that named names, including 2 alleged 9/11 pilots and 2 known al Qaeda operatives who bought 10 airline tickets under their own names dated 9/11/01--that we shouldn't have been caught flat-footed on 9/11.

Yes, I agree we shouldn't have been caught flat-footed. Unfortunately, we were. Hopefully, this has resulted in more vigilance going forward. We haven't been attacked here in the US since then, which is a good thing.

Regardless, this is not a reason to think 9/11 was an inside job.

I think that when NORAD drilled on hijacked-airliner-into-WTC scenarios before 9/11, that they shouldn't have been caught flat-footed.

Unfortunately, they were.

I think that when 600 mph airliners can rule the skies for 100 minutes and 1800 mph F-15s can't catch them, something's wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

We have.

I think that when NIST issues reports that fail to address the 7 essential mysteries (and ignore one of the stated objectives of the report in doing so) and ignore the laws of physics, something's wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

We have. The "7 essential mysteries" are the delusions of a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves, washes his hair with soap, and was expelled from the truth movement for being a sex stalker.

I think when the 9/11 Commission fails to answer 91% of the widows' questions, and the best answer the propaganda machine can come up with is "they're idiots and nobody cares what they want" something's wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

Nobody cares about your "widows".

I think that when people who haunt a debunkers' website soend all their time lying instead of doing serious debunking, something's wrong and we need to get to the bottom of it.

Well, actually, I don't care why you lie so much. I just find it amusing and enjoy taunting you.

Prodo Faggins, "...if you think I plagiarized from a person I never heard of, kindly back up your claim with appropriate quotes and timestamps."

You have a link to the program, goat fucker. Point your web browser at KPFA and listen to the program. Is that simple enough for you, jackass?

Here we have another example of Prodo Faggins and his naked, in your face double standards. Prodo Faggins is NEVER required to substantiate ONE WORD he scribbles to this blog, while everyone is REQUIRED to substantiate every jot and tittle they write to this blog.

ButtGale, You are the one making the extraordinary claim and you are the one who is refusing to back it up. "The proof is in the $30 C-Span video" or "The proof is in this 2-hour radio program" is an argument much loved by con artists.

Ian, we haven't gotten to the bottom of any of it. NORAD, for example, lied to the 9/11 Commission. You may be okay with lies; I'm not, and the widows are not.

UtterFail, you can not expect people to listen to a 1-hour radio program to see if it supports your claim. Your unwillingness to find the actual time stamp suggests that you're lying--but I would have to listen to an hour of radio, then I'd come back here and report that the radio program does not say what you claim, and then you and Ian would accuse me of lying.

You are very cynical people. You lie to pick fights about nothing so as to bury the important points, such as the following:

So Pat, are you trying to say that your conspiracy theory that 19 little guys with boxcutters managed to overwhelm the air defenses of the greatest military power the world has ever seen for 110 minutes is sane?

That they could fly an unarmed airliner off course for 400 miles and ram it into the military HQ even after hitting the twin towers half an hour before?

That when two known al Qaeda agents who had

1) lived with an FBI informant in San Diego and

2) made phone calls back to a known al Qaeda safe house in Yemen that was bugged by NSA satellite intercepts, CIA intercepts, electronic surveillance and audio bugs,

bought ten airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their real names,nobody in the intelligence community noticed?

Not even when the Mossad warned of 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big, and named their names, along with those of 2 alleged 9/11 pilots?

Ian, we haven't gotten to the bottom of any of it. NORAD, for example, lied to the 9/11 Commission. You may be okay with lies; I'm not, and the widows are not.

Nobody cares what you and your "widows" want. Also, I'm not OK with NORAD lying to the 9/11 commission, but I don't think that their lying means that magic thermite elves were used to destroy the WTC.

You don't have the power to upset me; only to disgust me.

That's the kind of squealing that I was talking about!

You know what else upsets you? The fact that Carol Brouillet hates you and will never talk to you again. She prefers strong, heroic men like Willie Rodriguez or eloquent intellectuals like Kevin Barrett. You, on the other hand, are an illiterate failed janitor and pervert.

So Pat, are you trying to say that your conspiracy theory that 19 little guys with boxcutters managed to overwhelm the air defenses of the greatest military power the world has ever seen for 110 minutes is sane?

That they could fly an unarmed airliner off course for 400 miles and ram it into the military HQ even after hitting the twin towers half an hour before?

That when two known al Qaeda agents who had

1) lived with an FBI informant in San Diego and

2) made phone calls back to a known al Qaeda safe house in Yemen that was bugged by NSA satellite intercepts, CIA intercepts, electronic surveillance and audio bugs,

bought ten airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their real names,nobody in the intelligence community noticed?

Not even when the Mossad warned of 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big, and named their names, along with those of 2 alleged 9/11 pilots?

WAQo, last time I checked, the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law were not delusions.

The 7 essential mysteries exist, UtterFail.

1. How did damage on one side of the building result in sudden total failure of all four sides of the building?

2. How did a local failure one one side of the building cause the total failure of the entire building?

3. How could the rotation of the upper portion of WTC2 have been stopped? By the law of conservation of angular momentum, this rotation should have continued and would have generated amazing asymmetrical forces.

4. How did the rubble come down through the path of greatest resistance at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity--as if the 80,000 tons of structural steel in each tower designed to resist gravity loads did not exist?

5. What was the mechanism by which 180,000 tons of concrete floors were pulverized to such a complete degree that debunkliars in this forum are reduced to arguing that the occasional 5" piece of concrete is a "boulder"?

6. What created the molten steel found in the rubble pile when jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel?

7. Why did the lower cores fail after they had survived the initial collapses of their outer floors? These cores were designed to hold up the weight of the entire building, but they seem to have collapsed straight down under only their own weight.

NIST did not explain any of these things. They did not even address them (unless you consider half a page of hand-waving with no calcs whatsoever addressing point #1).

We know what we're talking about. You don't. That's why you must resort to "point and giggle" arguments based on lies.

And every one of your "7 essential mysteries" have been debunked--here and elsewhere.

See? Your "7 essential mysteries" don't exist. They're nothing more than the product of your delusional "mind," and, of course, your steadfast refusal to accept reality. You fancy yourself as some super hero who will someday "solve the crime." The reality, however, is that you'll go to your grave having wasted your life chasing your delusions. Pathetic.

Wouldn't your miserable life have been better spent on productive ventures? You know, like mopping floors?

Again, your delusions and incredulity don't qualify as "mysteries." And they never will.

Now get out of here and go wave your wand at little old ladies in Golden Gate Park.

Oh, the towers didn't totally collapse because part of the perimeter walls stood for four stories? And the concrete was not completely pulverized because there were a few 5" "boulders"? You clowns live in a fantasy world.

You may as well argue that the Parrot is not dead because there's mold growing on it.

WAQo, last time I checked, the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law were not delusions.

They're not. You're just so stupid you can't even mop floors or wash your hair correctly, so of course you wouldn't understand them.

1. How did damage on one side of the building result in sudden total failure of all four sides of the building?

2. How did a local failure one one side of the building cause the total failure of the entire building?

3. How could the rotation of the upper portion of WTC2 have been stopped? By the law of conservation of angular momentum, this rotation should have continued and would have generated amazing asymmetrical forces.

4. How did the rubble come down through the path of greatest resistance at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity--as if the 80,000 tons of structural steel in each tower designed to resist gravity loads did not exist?

5. What was the mechanism by which 180,000 tons of concrete floors were pulverized to such a complete degree that debunkliars in this forum are reduced to arguing that the occasional 5" piece of concrete is a "boulder"?

6. What created the molten steel found in the rubble pile when jet fuel can not burn hot enough to melt steel?

7. Why did the lower cores fail after they had survived the initial collapses of their outer floors? These cores were designed to hold up the weight of the entire building, but they seem to have collapsed straight down under only their own weight.

See what I mean? You're a delusional ignoramus and liar so you think these are "mysteries". The Anglo-Saxons thought Halley's Comet was mysterious when it appeared in 1066, but that's because they didn't know what comets were.

You don't have the excuse of living in a pre-modern age. You're just an insane liar and lunatic who wears women's underwear and babbles about magic thermite elves.

The really funny part is that you expect us to take you seriously. Have you ever wondered why, after 10 years, you've still gotten no further than spamming this blog?

Oh, the towers didn't totally collapse because part of the perimeter walls stood for four stories? And the concrete was not completely pulverized because there were a few 5" "boulders"? You clowns live in a fantasy world.

My, such squealing!

You may as well argue that the Parrot is not dead because there's mold growing on it.

Hey Brian, remember when you were kicked out of the truth movement for toilet-papering Kevin Barrett's car and running through the Mission District wearing nothing but a football helmet, a bra, and an inflatable inner tube?

Ian, the reasons the 7 mysteries are mysteries are not because I can't understand the answers. The reason they are mysteries is because NIST has not answered them.

So if you can understand the answers, what are you babbling about? I already told you that NIST is not in the business of answering the delusional questions of crazy people. If you want magic thermite elves explained to you, go see a psychiatrist.

Ian wrote, "...Hey Brian, remember when you were kicked out of the truth movement for toilet-papering Kevin Barrett's car and running through the Mission District wearing nothing but a football helmet, a bra, and an inflatable inner tube?...Craig Ranke told me all about that. It's hilarious."

Well, there are answers to your "mysteries". You're just too stupid and insane to understand them.

There is nothing delusional about the 7 mysteries I detailed above. They are questions that NIST has not answered.

Actually, they're the definition of delusions. They exist only in your mind.

I know you think you've answered them, but your conception of gravity does not negate the laws of thermodynamics.

See what I mean? You think the collapses violated the laws of physics, even though you've made it painfully clear that you don't understand a thing about physics. You're just a delusional failed janitor in women's underwear.

So keep squealing all you want, Brian. The widows will never have their questions answered, and you will never have your new investigation.

UtterFail, your "humor" is typical Bushbot-type lies. When called on it, you can make a countercharge of humorlessness.

Ian, please advise--what are the answers to my mysteries? "Gravity" is not an answer.

You don't know what the definition of delusion is. A delusion is a fixed belief held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. A question is not a fixed belief, and no evidence that the question has been answered has been offered.

I understand physics just fine. You don't even know what the laws of thermodynamics are, and don't understand the old joke about them--1) you can't win, 2) you must lose, and 3) you can't quit.

Without a doubt, engineering schools all over the world will be running computer models of the collapses of the World Trade Center within ten years. That is the beginning of the new investigation, and nothing can stop it.

UtterFail, your "humor" is typical Bushbot-type lies. When called on it, you can make a countercharge of humorlessness.

BRIAN BABBLES 'BOUT BUSHBOTS! BRIAN BABBLES 'BOUT BABOONS!

You don't know what the definition of delusion is.

False.

A delusion is a fixed belief held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

Yup, and you believe, despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, that the WTC towers were destroyed by a controlled demolition. Hence, you're delusional. Carol Brouillet said as much about you.

I understand physics just fine.

False. You've demonstrated on many occasions that you don't understand them. But because you're delusional, you think your laughably wrong assertions about physics hold water.

Have you ever wondered why you're a failed janitor and not an engineer or physicist, Brian?

Without a doubt, engineering schools all over the world will be running computer models of the collapses of the World Trade Center within ten years.

Sure. And when they don't come to the conclusions you want them to, you'll start squealing about how they're "dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable" and you'll call all the researchers "girls".

1. F=MA. The F in this case was far beyond what the rest of the building could withstand, and it collapsed.

2. F=MA. The F in this case was far beyond what the rest of the building could withstand, and it collapsed.

3. Who said it didn't create asymmetrical forces?

4. F=MA. The F in this case was far beyond what the rest of the building could withstand, and it collapsed. Also, which way was it supposed to collapse? Gravity makes things fall down, not sideways.

5. Pulverized concrete is a delusion.

6. Molten steel is a delusion.

7. Gravity.

OK, so not everything is a delusion. Much of it is just plain old ignorance and the inability to understand how things work. That's OK, Brian. You're an unemployed janitor so nobody expects you to understand these things. Leave it to the rest of us who know what we're talking about.

RGT, few people have fixed beliefs in ghosts and angels and, as you point out, incontrovertible evidence that they do not exist is not forthcoming. Thus entertaining the hypothesis that they exist is not a delusion.

If people believe that ghosts or angels are making specific interventions in their lives despite evidence that this is not so, that can enter the realm of delusion.

If people merely perceive ghosts or angels or merely receive messages from them, so long as they distinguish their perceptions from reality and recognize that these perceptions may be hallucinations, they are not maintaining fixed beliefs and are not delusional.

Ian, you provide no numbers for your F=MA. The numbers that have been provided are completely unrealistic, because they assume the freefall acceleration for three meters of the entire top block and neglect frictional factors. Not even NIST dares to overtly endorse Dr. Bazant's ridiculous model, though certainly its assumptions underlie their rationalization of their abdication of the responsibility to explain the collapses.

F=MA in no way explains how an F on one side of the building causes an acceleration on the other side of the building.

Ian, you provide no numbers for your F=MA. The numbers that have been provided are completely unrealistic, because they assume the freefall acceleration for three meters of the entire top block and neglect frictional factors. Not even NIST dares to overtly endorse Dr. Bazant's ridiculous model, though certainly its assumptions underlie their rationalization of their abdication of the responsibility to explain the collapses.

Nobody cares what you find "unrealistic". You've proven yourself to be an ignorant and delusional liar.

F=MA in no way explains how an F on one side of the building causes an acceleration on the other side of the building.

I don't expect anyone to care what I find unrealistic. I expect them to care that you find realistic the proposition that 12 feet of a skyscraper should just go "poof!" and turn to vapor so the top 15 stories can fall at freefall for 12 feet. I expect them to point and giggle at the fool who finds that plausible.

Maybe someday, Ian, you will learn to distinguish among facts, opinions, and fantasies--but until you do your pronouncements will never have any weight.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Hey Brian, who is the one who wants the widows' questions answered, you or me? Who wants a new investigation, you or me? Who wants truther studies published in academic journals, you or me?

If my pronouncements have no weight, why have you had no success in getting any of this accomplished? Maybe the hundreds of thousands of people who read our debates realize that you're a failed janitor and liar and lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves, and that's why they don't listen to you.

You see nothing implausible in the suspension of the 1st law of thermodynamics. OK, fine. Your opinion is a fantasy. I prefer to live in the reality-based community, myself.

Thanks for proving my point. You're a delusional ignoramus. You're delusional in that you think a building collapse violated the laws of physics and you're an ignoramus in claiming things about physics laws you clearly know nothing about.

And if you're living in the "reality-based" world, does this mean you admit that you are petgoat, or that you ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from Willie Rodriguez?

RGT, free-fall means no resistance. Any resistance at all would slow down the fall because the energy necessary to overcome the resistance must be supplied from the kinetic energy of the falling object.

Imagine a wagon coasting down a hill. Now imagine the same wagon, the same hill, and it's crashing through bushes. The wagon has to slow down. If the wagon doesn't give up energy to the bushes, it can't crash through them.

The only way the bushes will not slow the wagon down is if there is some added energy input, such as angels removing the bushes as the wagon gets there. Energy is always conserved. That's the first law.

You guys seem to think there's some kind of exemption from the laws of physics when things get big. Sure, the upper part of the building was big--but so were the columns that were put in place to hold them up. In Building 7 column 79 was, if memory serves an H-shape 3" thick with 4" face plates welded over the open ends of the H. The whole thing was 24" X 26".

There was 40,000 tons of structural steel in WTC7 designed to keep the weight in the air.

You guys seem to think there's some kind of exemption from the laws of physics when things get big.

No, you're just an ignoramus, so you don't understand that scale matters.

And you're delusional in that you think your appalling ignorance of physics is actually the way things are. As I've said before, there's a reason you're an unemployed janitor and not the chair of the Stanford physics department.

Sure, the upper part of the building was big--but so were the columns that were put in place to hold them up. In Building 7 column 79 was, if memory serves an H-shape 3" thick with 4" face plates welded over the open ends of the H. The whole thing was 24" X 26".

So what?

There was 40,000 tons of structural steel in WTC7 designed to keep the weight in the air.

So what?

There no "scale coefficient" in the laws of thermodynamics or in Newton's laws.

Talk about delusional. And as RGT says, there are more laws than just the ones you remember from the high school physics class you failed 40 years ago.

Hey Pat, do you expect me to believe a 40 gorilla could enter the country without a visa, get his own Broadway show without being a member of the actor's union, break out of chains made for the strongest "stainless steel", find his way 2 miles to the Empire State Building, bring down two of our nation's state-of-the art fighters with his bare hands, but somehow gets "fatally shot" falling to his "death"?

Ian, you are merely posturing, with elaborate denunciations of my alleged ignorance and stupidity, but it's all empty and you don't know what you're talking about.

Your inability to comprehend the significance of the building's structural resistance demonstrates your inability to comprehend the laws of physics you pretend to understand. When the top of the building exerts a F=ma on the lower part, the lower part exerts an equal and opposite F=ma on the upper. Only with the additional energy inputs of the angels clearing away the resistance can the top come down at 2/3 of gravitational acceleration.

There no "scale coefficient" in the laws of thermodynamics or in Newton's laws. That is an easily verifiable fact. And if you think there are laws that trump the laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd, please identify these laws.

You guys have to invent some pretty goofy beliefs in order to maintain your illusions.

Ian, you are merely posturing, with elaborate denunciations of my alleged ignorance and stupidity, but it's all empty and you don't know what you're talking about.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, do you plan on getting the widows questions answered any time soon? I'm getting bored waiting.

Your inability to comprehend the significance of the building's structural resistance demonstrates your inability to comprehend the laws of physics you pretend to understand. When the top of the building exerts a F=ma on the lower part, the lower part exerts an equal and opposite F=ma on the upper. Only with the additional energy inputs of the angels clearing away the resistance can the top come down at 2/3 of gravitational acceleration.

So you're saying their was additional force acting on the collapsing towers besides gravity? What was it? A magnetic field? Rocket boosters? A tractor beam from space in reverse?

You guys have to invent some pretty goofy beliefs in order to maintain your illusions.

Brian, you just told us that a force in addition to gravity caused the towers to collapse.

I love it when you start talking as if we're listening to you, because that's when the best of your rambling insanity comes out. And given that you're delusional, you don't realize how insane you sound.

Fourth - We were lead to believe a huge gash had been ripped in the side of the ship, yet when investigators reached the ship they found no gash? Why the lie?

Not only that, but the ship is split in two on the ocean bottom. Survivors said they heard explosions as the ship sank.

Obviously, thermite cut the ship in half. The claims that an iceberg cause the ship to sink are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable. They ignore the 7 essential mysteries of the sinking, such as molten steel found in the wreckage.

Hey Pat, do you expect me to believe the RMS Titanic sank - on its maiden voyage - after a glancing blow from an iceburg?

Steel framed ships do not sink into their own footprints from small leaks. Titanic's two halves were laterally ejected a half mile from each other and landed in opposite directions; how is that possible without explosives?

"are you trying to say that your conspiracy theory that 19 little guys with boxcutters managed to overwhelm the air defenses of the greatest military power the world has ever seen for 110 minutes is sane?"

Were they little guys? I don't think so.

They didn't overwhelm the air defenses, they flew through the many gaps which still exist today.

"bought ten airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their real names,nobody in the intelligence community noticed?"

If the names aren't on a watch list they don't get noticed. It's just the way it was that morning. Even now guys on the watch list are still getting on planes. I'm not sure why you feel this is a mystery?

"Imagine a wagon coasting down a hill. Now imagine the same wagon, the same hill, and it's crashing through bushes. The wagon has to slow down. If the wagon doesn't give up energy to the bushes, it can't crash through them.

The only way the bushes will not slow the wagon down is if there is some added energy input, such as angels removing the bushes as the wagon gets there. Energy is always conserved. "

This is how you damaged your brain, right, a wagon on a hill, no helmet, weeeeeeeeee - boom!

Your anologies suck.

I'm guessing you've never played Jenga, mostly because it requires friends and/or people who'd want to hang out with you socially.

The goat fucker hallucinates, "...Imagine a wagon coasting down a hill. Now imagine the same wagon, the same hill, and it's crashing through bushes. The wagon has to slow down. If the wagon doesn't give up energy to the bushes, it can't crash through them...The only way the bushes will not slow the wagon down is if there is some added energy input, such as angels removing the bushes as the wagon gets there. Energy is always conserved."

Gentlemen, this is the return of rake-on-rake (repackaged, of course, for the unwitting).

Yes, Ian, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd Law both require additional inputs of energy other than the potential gravitational energy of the building for the structure to behave as it did, falling at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity.

The building is built with a structural safety factor of at least 3. For the top part to fall through the structure at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity, the structure must be providing resistance of only 1/3 the force of gravity. That means that 90% of the structural resistance must have been removed.

RGT, there is no "differing materials coefficient" in Newton's 3rd Law. You guys are proving my point when you resort to rewriting the laws of physics to try to explain what happened to the buildings.

MGF, your information about Alec Station does not refute the fact that the NSA refused to share information with the CIA.http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2004/12/how-i-not-i-to-catch-a-terrorist/3627/

Were the hijackers little guys? You don't think so? Why don't you think so? The 9/11 Commission says: "The so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build."

Al Shehri was 5'3", al Gamdi was 5'5", and al Hazmi was 5'4".

And now you're claiming that there was a "gap" in the air defenses of the HQ of the greatest military power the world has ever seen?

As of AUgust, 2001, al Mihdhar and al Hazmi were on CIA, State Department, and INS watch lists.

Look at yourself as you make stuff up. There were gaps in the Pentagon air defenses. The hijackers were big guys. They weren't on a watch list. You make stuff up to protect your illusions. I used to do it too, but at least I was honest enough to try to find out the truth.

Some people are not very good with analogies, such people do poorly in college, then they will claim that analogies suck but will be unable to suggest a way to improve them. And gee whiz, some of those people are such losers that they spend Friday night making stuff up at some backwater blog, accusing those who have better things to do of lacking a social life.

Any idiot can see they don't behave identically. But they both adhere to the laws of action-and-reaction (one by structural deformation and one by bouncing)and conservation of energy (one by absorbing its kinetic energy in the process of cracking the shell and deforming the soft parts, and one by reversing direction). Note that the rebounding ping-pong ball willnot rebound as high as the initial drop. This is because some of the kinetic energy of the drop is absorbed in temporarily deforming the ball and raising its temperature slightly.

The laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws of motion do not dictate behavior, but they do dictate the mathematics of these interactions.

You can't just invent magic coefficients for size and material that are of whatever value you need to satisfy yourself that no investigation of the collapses' failure to adhere to the laws of physics need be done.

"MGF, your information about Alec Station does not refute the fact that the NSA refused to share information with the CIA."

Does it?

Lets look at the article...

"4. February 1996-May 1998: The Bin Laden unit and several other senior CIA officers requested transcripts rather than summaries of electronic collection against al-Qaeda ... [V]erbatim transcripts are operationally useful, summaries are much less so, and they are usually not timely. The answer to these requests in every case was no. At one point the senior operations officer for an Intelligence Community component said that the National Security Act of 1947 gave her agency control of "raw" signals intelligence, and that she would not pass such material to CIA."

Two points, there's a chain of command to be followed. It's a pain in the ass but that's the way it is. Alec Station obviously didn't make their case with their leadership.

Second, and this is key:

"the senior operations officer for an Intelligence Community component..."

This lady had the last word, not the NSA.

Let's look at the other one (and by "let's" I mean everone else because you obviously can't read):

". August 1998: After the bombing of two U.S.-based embassies in East Africa, the senior CIA managers asked what the Bin Laden unit needed most to enhance the attack against al-Qaeda. I again raised our dire need for verbatim reports derived from electronic collection. These senior managers ordered this to be arranged. After receiving less than a dozen such transcripts the process stopped. Despite repeated requests, I failed to get the flow of data restored. Also, tragically, no member of the Bin Laden unit was asked to testify before the State Department's accountability boards for the 1998 embassy bombings. This exclusion ensured that the systemic problems embedded in the Intelligence Community—which had become overwhelmingly clear before the 1998 al-Qaeda attacks—were not raised before the only pre-9/11 panel that might have been able to initiate remedial action. "

For some reason you and the assclown-troofers can't accept systemic problems and turf-wars as a reasonable explaination. Yet there it is in black and white.

Who was President in 1998? Who was his "Counter Terrorism Czar"?

Why do you ignore this?

Once again you provide a link which actually answers some of those infamous questions and undermines your argument:

"Were the hijackers little guys? You don't think so? Why don't you think so? The 9/11 Commission says: "The so-called muscle hijackers actually were not physically imposing, as the majority of them were between 5’5” and 5’7” in height and slender in build."

Al Shehri was 5'3", al Gamdi was 5'5", and al Hazmi was 5'4"."

Obviously you've never been in a fight (which is a shame). Anyway, please keep believing short people are weak. Please do this, SLC will thank you eventually.

"And now you're claiming that there was a "gap" in the air defenses of the HQ of the greatest military power the world has ever seen?"

Napoleon didn't have air defenses for obvious reasons. As far as the United States in 2001 goes...

The NORAD had a lot of holes on 9/11 - because we live in a free country which restricts what, when, and where the military can operate. NORAD still has many of those same holes today.

"As of AUgust, 2001, al Mihdhar and al Hazmi were on CIA, State Department, and INS watch lists."

MGF, so you're proving my point. The NSA refused to share data with the CIA.

By injecting a lot of attitude you're trying to make it seem like that's how it should be.

You expressed doubt about the fact that the alleged hijackers were little guys. I showed that they were in fact little guys.

So now you're claiming that NORAD was not authorized to defend the Pentagon?

You claimed that the guys who bought the airline tickets were not on watch lists. I showed they were on watch lists. You guys here make up your facts and have a hard time admitting when you're wrong. Grow up and you might learn something.

When the FBI learned of the presence of two al Qaeda agents in the USA, they immediately had a high-level discussion about whether to have a fully-resourced criminal investigation or a half-assed intelligence investigation. They opted to assign one guy, a rookie, to an intel investigation. Even though this guy didn't know what the hell he was doing, within a few days he thought to ask for the credit card data on these guys. If he had gotten that, the fact that they bought ten tickets for 9/11 would have come to light. But his boss told him that requesting that info was a bad idea.

These terrorists had to get lucky again and again and again and again and again and again. And all you can say is "Well Clinton this" and "Well Clinton that".

"You expressed doubt about the fact that the alleged hijackers were little guys. I showed that they were in fact little guys."

Doesn't matter. They were armed and had training. From the report:

"According to KSM,Abu Turab even had the trainees butcher a sheep and a camel with a knife to prepare to use knives during the hijackings. The recruits learned to focus on storming the cockpit at the earliest opportunity when the doors first opened, and to worry about seizing control over the rest of the plane later. The operatives were taught about other kinds of attack as well, such as truck bombing, so that they would not be able to disclose the exact nature of their operation if they were caught. "

You think because they were small they couldn't have pulled off the hijackings which is why you're an idiot.

"So now you're claiming that NORAD was not authorized to defend the Pentagon?"

I didn't say that. I would point out NORAD didn't know the Pentagon was a target. It is possible the pilot didn't plan to hit the Pentagon based on his flight path:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc02.pdf

His 360 degree turn could indicated he couldn't find his initial taregt so he went for the Pentagon because it was easier to find/see from the air.

"You claimed that the guys who bought the airline tickets were not on watch lists. I showed they were on watch lists. You guys here make up your facts and have a hard time admitting when you're wrong. Grow up and you might learn something."

Obviously not the right lists, Brian. Obviously nobody took airline security seriously, Brain. Terrorists have boarded planes even after being placed on the new No-Fly list, Brian.

Why, Brain?

Let me clue you in...for the same reason Mohammed Atta was issues a student visa by the INS - 6 months after 9/11/2001.

MGF, I never said the alleged hijackers couldn't pull off a hijacking.

I am simply trying to establish the facts. When I said they were 19 little guys you disputed that characterization. They were 19 little guys. The biggest of them was 5'8". And the biggest ones were pilots.

So you think training in truck bombing is relevant to intimidating a cabin full of airplane passengers? It's a hoot to see the straws you clutch.

Your belief that the 360 degree turn was the action of someone who was lost is a real hoot. He lost exactly the right amount of altitude so that when he leveled off just above the ground he was headed straight toward the Pentagon. That was not an improvised maneuver. So you think the Capitol and the White House are difficult to see from the air?

So CIA, State Department, FBI, and INS watch lists are not the right lists to alert people to do something about two known al Qaeda agents known to be associated with 2 pilots associated with a group of 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big? They could have been arrested for immigration violations.

Obviously nobody took airline security seriously, when al Qaeda's 9/11 plan had been known since 1995.

I've got no love for Clinton. His sanctions against Iraq killed 500,000 children. He was the most anti-privacy President in history in his time. It looks like he was CIA-connected through the Mena, Arkansas drug smuggling ops. And his palling around with the Bushes after W engaged in illegal wars and stolen elections was disgusting. Fuck Clinton.

My problem is that you are satisfied to point the finger when you haven't nailed down the blame. His Counterterrorism expert gave Bush's National Security Advisor a plan to go after al Qaeda, and she ignored it.

"So you think training in truck bombing is relevant to intimidating a cabin full of airplane passengers? It's a hoot to see the straws you clutch."

Note how you ignore the rest of the paragraph detailing their training. Your mental problem surfaces again.

"I've got no love for Clinton. His sanctions against Iraq killed 500,000 children. He was the most anti-privacy President in history in his time. It looks like he was CIA-connected through the Mena, Arkansas drug smuggling ops."

...and there it is...another conspiracy theory with no proof...

"Your belief that the 360 degree turn was the action of someone who was lost is a real hoot. He lost exactly the right amount of altitude so that when he leveled off just above the ground he was headed straight toward the Pentagon. That was not an improvised maneuver."

He was obviously lost because he was already flying in a straight line to the Pentagon. He got to the river too fast, hence his turn.

The widows give a flying fuck. So you're saying the widows are nobody?

Yes! We've been saying that for a long time. Nobody cares about your "widows" because they're nobody. In addition, nobody cares about you because you're nobody, but your endless babbling about magic thermite elves is entertaining, so we keep you around here.

I've debated Willie right here. Here I am, here he isn't. I don't remember any squealing and crying. I think you hear things that aren't there--like a laugh track to your "jokes". I do remember someone around here covered his departure by threatening to publish private emails. Some people are real sleazes, aren't they?

False. He challenged you to a debate right here, and you ran away squealing and crying, demanding the debate be hosted by Carol Brouillet, who you know full well wants nothing to do with you because you're a perverted stalker.

I don't remember any squealing and crying.

Everyone else here does.

I think you hear things that aren't there--like a laugh track to your "jokes".

You're squealing right now, Brian.

I do remember someone around here covered his departure by threatening to publish private emails. Some people are real sleazes, aren't they?

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's been pwn3d and he knows the widows questions will never be answered, so all he can do is spam this blog in frustration.

That's it, Brian, keep squealing! All you can do is make evidence-free assertions that I lie and make up 1st-grade playground insults (like calling us "girls"). I expect nothing less from an insane, failed janitor.

All you can do is make ludicrous claims of victory that a child can see through.

So I haven't won? You want the widows questions answered, I don't want them to have their questions answered. I win.

You want new investigations, I don't. I win.

You want a scientific journal to publish "meatball on a fork", I don't. I win.

You can squeal all you want about this, but the fact is that you've failed yet again, Brian.

You pretty much lose to anyone by default because you look like a homeless lunatic. It's hilarious that you chose this photo yourself, which suggests it's one of your better ones. What do your crappy photos look like?